Talk:Presuppositional apologetics

older entries

The long Frame quote doesn't seem particularly useful in elucidating the preceding paragraph. Could you shorten it, summarize or paraphrase it, or something? (Could you also login, so I know who you are? :-) ) --Flex 04:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree about the Frame quote. By the way, Flex, I have to congratulate you -- excellent work on this article! It's very good, so much so that I'm tempted to nominate it as a Wikipedia:Featured article, though I expect they'll find it too technical and unfamiliar a topic for such treatment. I'll still conisder it seriously, though -- this is so well done. Thanks for your hard work, Jwrosenzweig 23:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All right, after further review, I had to nominate it. I hope others are as impressed as I was. Jwrosenzweig 23:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am humbled by your praise, but I cannot take full credit. Some anonymous person made significant additions to what I wrote originally and in the process made the article a lot better. --Flex 19:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, I reverted some of your edits to the intro because I felt they made it a little more bulky. For instance, I don't think we need a definition of apologetics here because it duplicates the text in the intro of the "Apologetics" article, which is linked, and "other schools of Christian apologetics" doesn't need the prepositional phrase because the type of school was given two sentences before. --Flex 20:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Flex, I think the definition of apologetics might be useful -- since the term is unfamiliar to many (and its spelling often gives people misleading impressions of its denotation), I think it might be nice to have it explained in the text, rather than relying on people to go to another article and return. Would you accept a return of that brief definition? Otherwise I like your recent edit, as far as I can see. Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've done so, and I reworked the intro to try to make it all flow more smoothly. Suggestions, criticisms, comments? --Flex 18:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, Flex, can you see a way of doing anything with the quote of Frame? It's so hard to follow -- I tried to come up with a way of cutting it back a bit, but honestly all I can envision is cutting it entirely. Perhaps it can be replaced with a more concise explanation/refinement of Frame's views? Just a thought. Jwrosenzweig 22:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was hoping the person who inserted that quote would do it, but I just went ahead and changed it. --Flex 13:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Flex, great changes -- I like them. I did a little clean up in the intro, but generally I think they work really well. One of the key objections by the editors on the featured article nomination was that not enough time was given to critics -- I've expanded the time given to criticisms of presuppositional apologetics in the circularity section. I think the section had gotten into the structure of explaining an objection in one sentence, but then allowing presuppositionalists a good paragraph to respond. I've tried to even it out a little. If you think I went too far, please leave a note here, or just do some changing and trimming and I'll see how I like it. I'm sure we can work out a good compromise. I hope you like my additions -- Jwrosenzweig 21:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like most of the changes you made, but I don't think presuppositionalists would agree with the last sentence: "Van Tillians blur the distinction between presuppositional apologetics and evidentialist apologetics, and suggest implicitly that the charge of circularity may be too difficult for a purely presuppositional apologist to counter." Frame in particular sees circularity much differently (see his Doctrine of Knowledge of God) and doesn't think it at all vitiates what Van Til was getting at. I'll see if I can come up with some revisions along those lines. --Flex 13:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The huge contribution by an anon seems largely confusing and redundant to me -- at some points I don't think they'd even read the article (talking about Clarkians, for example, in the circularity section as though they had not yet been introduced). I am inclined to revert it, but I wonder, Flex, if by looking at the contribution you see anything worth keeping? I thought the explanation that existed before the anonymous edit was more than good enough, and I can't say I see much improvement at all in the edit, but if you'd like me to avoid a full revert, I will. I'll come back in the morning, and if no one's objected, I'm going to revert the edit. I'd welcome anyone else's opinion, of course, but I expect it's just Flex and I paying attention at the moment. Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the anon has some good things to contribute here, but I agree with you that it should be reverted for now. For one, the changes are not written "objectively" enough (e.g., "the critic has missed the point"), and all of his contribution at least needs a bit of reworking to fit better within the whole article, as you indicate. --Flex 15:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll revert, then, and we can chat here about what would be worth introducing -- are there specific ideas you think fit well? You know this topic far better than I do, so I'm happy to follow your lead. Jwrosenzweig 19:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I think we've resolved enough to withstand another FAC nomination. Flex, if you get the chance, it would be great if you could keep an eye on WP:FAC along with me -- I can handle a lot of the objections, but some of them (like the two Taxman makes) are out of my league, since I don't know what references were used to create the bulk of the article, and I don't know of any other schools of PA. If you don't want to, that's fine, but I'm hoping you and I can finally get this article over the hump and recognized as the solid article it is. Jwrosenzweig 21:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Will do. --Flex 15:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use of the word tautology

From the article: "any opponents of presuppositional apologetics would characterize the presuppositional argument as resting on a belief in the Bible as the source of truth because it is inspired by God, in whom we can believe because the Bible affirms it and the Bible is the source of truth. While some logicians accept tautology as a legitimate form of argument, most find it impossible to counter, since each premise is only acceptable if the other premise is also found acceptable."

The presuppositional argument given is not a tautology. It can not be reduced to a logical form that can shown to be true regardless of the truth of its parts. The actual problem with this argument is that each of its premises is supported solely by the other. This is circular reasoning rather than a tautology. As for tautologies, they are not necessary to counter since they are true regardless of the truth of the individual statements that comprise them and have nothing to do with their acceptability.

I suggest changing the characterization of the argument to one of circular reasoning rather than as a tautology. Comments?

--Sancho McCann 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be in line with what the rest of the article says -- there is an fairly lengthy discussion of the charge of circularity. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It will be difficult to change the sentence to read, "While some logicians accept circular reasoning as a legitimate...", because I don't think any do accept circular reasoning, and even if any did, I don't have a reference. However, the sentence as it stands "While some logicians accept a tautology ... since each premise is only acceptable if the other...", is actually false. Removing the incorrect description of a tautology to yield, "While some logicians accept tautology as a legitmate form of argument, most find it impossible to counter", doesn't add anything to this article. If there are no objections, I will delete this sentence. --Sancho McCann 09:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have deleted the sentence. If there are objections, revert and discuss. --Sancho McCann 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Length

Is is just me, or is this article rather long? Mdotley 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit verbose in places, but I don't think its length is excessive. Care to take a swing at tightening it up? --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, since I don't have any particular expertise in the history and criticism of apologetic frameworks. Besides, you guys seem to be doing a bang-up job without much help from me.  :-)

The only thing that seems to need much work is the close. It ends rather abruptly. Mdotley 23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

More refs and context

I think we need more refs in the "Circulaity" section which has none at present, and only skates the surface of some profound issues. Also why on earth is there no mention of Alvin Plantinga who is arguably the greatest living philosopher in this stream NBeale 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that we need more refs throughout, but I think Plantiga is omitted because he is more of the Reformed epistemology school than the Presuppositionalist school, though certainly the two have definite affinities with each other. --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags

As a result of a discussion at WP:FAR initiated by Flex, I went through the article, adding {{fact}} tags, and then cataloging the tags present. Below I include a list of all fact tags in the article at present, in order. I'm hoping some folks will resolve a tag or two, and strike them from the list, so we can strengthen the article and comply with WP:ATT. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. the basic definition of PA
2. its origins and current use in Reformed churches
3. the "key discriminator" of PA from other types of apologetics
4. PA criticisms of the "block house" method
5. the evidentialist conclusion about the Bible
6. the central idea of the Van Tilian argument
7. a quotation of C.S. Lewis
8. two paraphrases of Van Til and Bahnsen in a parenthetic remark
9. a paraphrase from Romans
10. Frame's perspective on the Holy Spirit
11. Clark's axiomatic approach,
12. Clark's translation of John 1:1
13. Clark's allowance of competing worldviews,
14. the distinction between Van Til and Clark
15. Clark's dismissal of Thomistic arguments,
16. the allegation of circular reasoning
17. the beliefs of Van Tilians about presuppositions
18. the Van Tilian approach to fideism
19. a defense of the concept of circular argument
20. Clarkians' reliance on the axioms of Scripture,
21. the unbeliever's demonstration of the truth of theism
22. the use of evidence to argue in "broader circles" by Van Tilians.

Cleanup

I went through and revamped much of the article: consolidating redundant points, copyedits for clarity or succinctness, and provided a whole slew of citations to eliminate most of the fact tags as per the FAR list (still several in the Clark section -- I'm not overly familiar with Clark so I left those for someone who is). I put a working draft as a subpage of my user page, here. Please comment or correct. » MonkeeSage « 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to do a thorough review, but on cursory inspection, it looks much improved. I would delete the "References" section since "Notes" has superseded it (perhaps then renaming "Notes" to "References"), and I would redact the redundant book info. No need to repeat the publisher, ISBN, etc. for a change in page ({{cite_book|author=Bahnsen |title=Van Til's Apologetic |pages=p. 144}} should suffice, for instance, and "p." and "pp." should have a space following them or be omitted altogether.) Thanks for doing the hard work! --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

NP! Mabye drop the "References" section and add a "Bibliography" section with ISBN and publication data and all, and then the footnotes can be even more concise and drop the template altogether, e.g., "Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic, p. 144". I should have time to work on that tomorrow. » MonkeeSage « 06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you might want to attend to the recent deletion (with a relevant edit summary) of a paragraph from the Circularity section. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Complicated!

Ok... I am a college student at a private Bible college and have taken many Bible classes. I read this article and I can barely understand anything! This article is most definitely written at a doctorate level and not at an encyclopedic level. I was able to gather the information that I needed after reading it several times but really - this is the kind of stuff that I would find in one of my thick Biblical studies books. This article seriously needs some language simplification - I doubt that nearly anyone not involved in Biblical studies could understand much from this article.
--Borisborf (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it appears complicated. When you zero in on the key points, the presuppositionalist "argument" completely folds, as it is nothing more than circular reasoning, question begging and bare assertion making. Here is a simplified version: You have to assume that god exists in order to understand the universe, because god says so. Circular reasoning? Its Ok because its virtuously circular reasoning (whatever that means).Skberry889 (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It may well be true that the wording is overly complicated (take a whack at improving it if you like), but the subject matter is also somewhat complicated in and of itself. It is less biblical (though advocates would argue the foundational principles are certainly biblical) and more philosophical, which may explain some of your perplexity. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So get a better education, Borisborf. Not Wikipedia's onus to dumb things down. Rocky 09:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

One, watch it with the personal comment, there is no need to be rude.

Two, it is not the mark of an intelligent mind to write something in esoteric language that other people cannot read. If anything, your ability to make things understandable is a sign that you have a depth of understanding. Using obtuse language, while often more precise, is a sign of a poor or lazy communicator. You'd do well to read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language, [1]" which essentially points out how unclear language is usually a smokescreen tactic of people who know that they've nothing to say that people would want to hear.

Three, the point of Wikipedia is to make information accessible to the masses, and that does mean what you called "dumbing things down." Articles that are useless to the layperson are nothing more than intellectual masturbation, and are better suited to academia than an encyclopedia. SuperJerms (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's funny; a year later, I still remember my comment on this page. I disagree 100% though that it is not the mark of intelligence to write something in "esoteric" language that other people "cannot" read, as several code words were thrown around. Please define to us just what it means to have something "esoteric" and "cannot" be read? Would a sentence longer than 2 words with a noun and a verb be too difficult as well? (we know that such is true for some, untrue for others) Rock8591 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty routine to watch the many ways people use to justify themselves and reject valid correction because they just can't stand to say, "I was wrong."184.7.109.78 (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussing PA in any way does require a bit of understanding underlying concepts in epistemology. Such a discussion could be impossible for some, yes, but I do find that the article could be explained better in layman's terms. Certain nuances in the underlying philosophical field of epistemology would be lost, yes, but I agree with SuperJerms underlying idea: the article should be made more accessible. The "mark of intelligence" is irrelevant: some will understand without "dumbing down," some will only understand if made accessible in layman's terms, and some will never understand. The point of WP is to inform, and sometimes that means taking liberties to make working terms accessible. This article, in whatever form, won't change the fact that epistemology is a difficult field to understand.Skberry889 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I came here to get a basic understanding presuppositional apologetics and this article failed miserably. So, I have to leave Wikipedia to find a definition. Not good. This is common with Wikipedia and it's unfortunate. --Intrepid-NY

Fideism

A common criticism of this kind of apologetics is that it employs philosophical rhetoric which is akin to fideism. For instance, you could have the same kind of presuppositional apologetics with Communist ideology, preaching Marx's manifesto as if every one already knew exactly what it was. ADM (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

Surely something so influential on Christian thought should have been roundly criticized by some pretty respected philosophers, but I see no section on this. I read through the article (rather quickly, I admit), but didn't find criticisms buried within the parts of the sections, either.

Anyone have the knowledge to fill in this gap?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 03:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading through this, I also found it strange that the article lacks a criticism section (especially since presuppositional apologetics is simply a sleight of hand trick and lacks the substantive value of a true argument, being nothing more than a bare assertion accompanied by circular reasoning). It might also be helpful to include some information about how presuppositional apologetics came into vogue (namely that christian apologists could no longer rely on logic (classical apologetics) or evidence (empirical apologetics) to support their claims, so they tried to attack the concept of logic itself). Skberry889 (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a short criticism section on this article could be relevant. That doesn't seem to be what you are looking for however, which seems to be the inclusion of your own personal bias against the Christian worldview. I think you're a bit confused about how wikipedia works. Ischus (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ischus, please WP:AGF. I'm well aware of how Wikipedia works (at least as far as POV/NPOV applies), as well as my own limitations, which is exactly why I didn't rewrite the criticism section, and instead solicited a revision of the criticism section here, on the talk page. Also, if epistemology and its limitations are to be recognized here, I can assure you any NPOV criticism section would not be short. I'll give you a list of possible criticism topics below. I'm not simply soliciting somebody else to do the grunt work for me, I'm simply asking that somebody a little more well-versed in philosophy than me take a look at this and see how to write a more edifying criticism section:

1. The problem of hard solipsism. To my knowledge this well recognized problem in epistemology has yet to be solved, yet Presuppositional Apologists (PAs for short) seem to think they've found the solution. Somebody must address this in order to have a functioning, quality wikipedia page on PA. 2. The problem of other minds. See above 3. Objective reality. Does it exist, how can you know for sure? See above. 4. Absolute truth. Does it exist, what does it mean, are there more definitions that need treatment? 5. Logical absolutes. What are they, do they exist, what do they refer to, etc.

This list is, of course, just a few of the issues and ideas PA attempts to solve/prove/justify. I've yet to hear anything close to a satisfying treatment of these issues/ideas by PA (other than "They exist and I know this because of Yahweh" or something to that effect). Also, as for my "own personal bias against the Christian worldview," I don't think it adequate to call it a "bias." I simply have never heard or seen (or otherwise encountered) any evidence to support the notion that the Christian worldview is indeed the correct one, and "God did it" is (or should be) insufficient to sway any person on this issue. Then of course, there is a difference between my being unconvinced by any arguments (generally) for the Christian worldview, and the PA argument specifically. One could say I am biased against this argument, inasmuch as I find it intellectually insulting and dishonest to simply assert that Yahweh exists and accuse everybody else of "borrowing from the Christian worldview by using reason, logic and empirical evidence. Thomists and evidentiary apologists aren't dishonest to the degree of PA. PAs don't argue or have debates, they simply take a few ideas from any Epistemology 101 course book, assert that Yahweh provides an adequate foundation, and accuse any naysayer of "borrowing" logic and empirical sensations from their worldview. The current criticism portion of this page is inadequate, as there are many fallacies inherent in PA, and begging the question is just one. I find it reasonable to infer, Ischus, that you haven't considered or contemplated PA to the fullest extent (and I mean no offense when I say this, as most people are not well versed in epistemology (which, incidentally, is why PA seems so satisfying at first glance, but when examined more fully, it is not simply insufficient, but intellectually insulting)), but, like all inferences, I could be wrong. I respectfully request that you research and consider the underlying concepts of PA before shrugging off anybody noting inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty by suggesting that they are blinded by their bias. I think you'll find PA less satisfying when you do. I also request somebody more fully versed in epistemology (and philosophy in general) than myself to ponder PA and weigh in with any possible criticism. My bias against PA is clear in its origin: PA is sophistry (mostly consisting of assertions, equivocation, and evasion), nothing more, nothing less. This fact doesn't preclude the existence of any deity, and I find it reasonable to think that most Christians would be appalled by PA, but again, this is just an inference, and I could be wrong about it.Skberry889 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-Christians implicitly assume Christianity?

Without starting an actual discussion on the subject matter in this comment's title, I feel that this article would be more illuminating if it contained examples of how non-Christians behaved as if Christianity were true. The uniformity of nature example seems a bit weak, and I'd wager that there are more concrete examples since Van Til is considered a notable philosopher. Is there a subject matter expert out there that could elaborate on this tenet? Erik Carson (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Van Til is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a notable philosopher. He was a quack theologian. The only reason he is discussed today is because the christians have no other way to persuade than to simply claim that they created logic. Also, there is no such thing as an "expert" in quackery (which wholly includes presuppositionalism) any more than there is an "expert" in "creation science."Skberry889 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the second paragraph

Is there something wrong with the second paragraph? It seems to contradict itself. Misty MH (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)